Kentucky was yesterday.  I don't even live there, but I could sure show them plenty of other areas to find chained dogs!

http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/dognamictourkentucky.html

And they made the local news:

http://www.wtvq.com/midatlantic/tvq/news.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-04-15-0006.html

"I hear conflicting arguments: there are already enough laws to protect chained dogs; they must have food, water and shelter and rabies vaccinations. My question is how do you enforce a dog needing fresh water refilled 5-10 times a day? I also hear that chaining limits are too hard to enforce, but I would think it would be much easier to see if a dog is on a chain all day then to see if his water bowl is empty or full."

I actually took the time to look at the Kentucky video.  Here is my impression...

The two pit bulls (not a breed I'm at all fond of) looked to be extremely healthy and fit.  Had adequate shade, obviously well fed, had lots of room to exercise, seemed well adjusted and playful and generally happy in their lives.

One comment on the website that really struck me is highlighted above.  Folks even when my dogs are in the house they don't get their water changed five or ten times per day.  When the bowl is empty, it's rinsed and refilled.  Are my house dogs therefore abused?

What I see here is disturbing.  We have a couple of people who have decided to strike out across the country, trespass, and invade peoples homes just because their dogs are tethered or chained, without regard one as to whether or not the dogs are healthy, happy, or abused.

Most of my dogs would whole heartedly feel abused if they were kept in the house all day and not given the freedom to exercise and play at will that they have now.

Whether a dog is chained, tethered, loose in the back yard, or kept in the house, kennel, or garage is no indication of abuse or mistreatment.  Would these ladies actually be happier if all dogs were set free to live their lives without constraint?

I'm sorry but applauding the "work" of these gals is unwarranted to say the least and if what they promote became common mentality and were to be codified by law you would see an end to virtually all working dog competition of any type and ownership of dogs would be such a bureaucratic nightmare most of us would just have to give them up.

Again, I think whether these gals intend it or not they are playing right into the hands of Peta's long term goal of working towards the elimination of all ownership of domestic animals including pets.  CR

"If you do not raise awareness to the problem, then how do you find a solution?" Awareness of what though? "12 days, 12 states, finding at least 10 chained up dogs in each state to prove that legislation is needed for tethering laws in all states. "  

Education? It's only educational if it's informing people of facts and putting them into a proper context. "A tethered dog is a forgotten dog in most cases, can become dangerous to children by being agressive guarding their area."

This isn't factual at all.  I've NEVER seen any evidence that putting a dog on a chain or tether MAKES a dog become mean, vicious, or aggressive.  I've certainly seen a lot of mean, dangerous, aggressive dogs put on chains or tethers in order to prevent them from biting someone.  The chain isn't the problem, the DOG IS!

Tethering and chaining dogs does them no harm whatsoever if it's done right. Dogs are just as easily or more so forgotten, ignored and neglected in homes, crates, garages, back yards or 20,000.00 custom built indoor outdoor kennels.

Now if they were educating and making people aware of abuse and neglect and mistreatment of animals and doing so in a fair and honest way I'd be right out there with them.  They are not however, they are misrepresenting tethering as it'self being cruel and abusive, why else would they make the way the dog is secured the focus rather than neglect and abuse.

If they were to get their way and all tethering and chaining were to be outlawed that would be the end of all competitive performance events such as field trialing, hunt testing, skijoring, dog sledding and on and on as well as making most birddog kennels instantly illegal because virtually all professional kennels uitilize stake outs, school chains etc to one degree or another.

If you get past the tugging at heart strings here it's easy to see that this is bad, bad, bad business for all of us.

" I AM an advocate for animal rights. I am proud to speak up for those dogs forgotten without food/water/shelter and human decency. I will never stop. "  I'm definitely there with you.  However above and beyond that I'm also an advocate of property rights and the rights of dog owners to own, train, handle, and house their dogs as they see fit as long as they are well cared for and tended to.

The idea that people like this can have a big influence on dog laws and ordinances scares the pants off of me. CR

"tethering as it'self being cruel and abusive, why else would they make the way the dog is secured the focus rather than neglect and abuse"

I think in alot of cases, neglect, abuse is a direct corelation to tethering.  Most of those tethered dogs you see, are hardly paid much attention to, making them unsocial menaces to society.  Every day I see another news allert about a child attacked by a chained dog. 

Why even have a dog if you don't pay any attention to it besides it's basic needs? 

day 11 on the road, they gotta be getting so tired....

http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/dognamictourvirginia.html

Tethering if you are out in the country with no close neighbors might be one thing but if you do it in a suburban or urban neighborhood you are asking for problems. Look up "attractive nuisance" on google. If you tether a dog in an unfenced yard and it attacks or bites a child who wanders into your yard you will be in major financial pain.

When our son was 3 a neighbor (and a friend) had her Norwegian Elkhounds tethered in her back yard until she could get a fence built. We were talking in the front yard and my son was in the backyard with her childeren when we heard a scream.  My son had tried to hug the female and she probably thought he was trying to choke her and she bit him. Barely missed a major artery in his neck.   I was at fault her too (never trust any dog alone with small children) and did not even think about sueing my neighbor. But we all have probably had neighbors who suplement their income by filing lawsuits.

On the subject of trusting dogs with small children-----sometimes even the nicest dog wants to be the top dog and when given a chance will try to change the dynamics of the family pack in their favor.

I have 2 responses to this:

1. If your son had cornered the Elkhound in a yard or room, the same thing could have happened. Some folks I know had a rather ill tempered Akita mix that when trapped under the table sliced their own son's head open, requiring a train track of staples to put the scalp back together. If a nervious dog can't get away from a kid, the results can be bad- period.

2. Note that many folks here have talked about responsible home- tethering INSIDE a perimeter fence to keep wandering people and dogs out. I'm not at all keen on tethering a dog out in the open where a stray can beat said dog up, but then many of these fancy modern invisible fence systems have the exact same issue... and I don't see an awareness campaign about that.

I really wish these gals were just driving around finding abused or neglected dogs, including dogs in horrible filthy back yards (happens ALL.THE.TIME, just watch that Animal Planet cop show) or running loose dodging cars. I would have a lot more sympathy if they weren't just focused on chaining, which is IMO peripheral to the real issue.

To respond to Charlie's questions:

You actually believe that putting a dog on a leash or chain causes that dog to become dangerous?  YES!  IT'S FACT, WHEN THEY ARE POORLY SOCIALIZED, THEY BECOME TERRITORIAL AND GUARD AND WILL LASH OUT, IT'S FACT.    

You actually beleive that putting a dog on a tether or chain makes that dog more neglected or abused than a dog that is abandoned in the back yard, garage, or kennel?   YES, ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE SOCIALIZATION IS KEY!  RESPONSIBILITY!

You in fact would support laws that would ban tethering or chaining dogs which would then of course outlaw field trials, hunt tests, dog training that uses stake outs and school chains as well as kennels that use them vs shoving dogs in crates and small pens?   TETHERING LAWS WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS:  DOG CAN BE TETHERED HUMANELY ON SO MANY FEET OF TETHER, FOR ONLY SO MANY HOURS A DAY.  IT WOULD NOT OUTLAW TETHERING AT FIELD TRIALS, THINK!!!!!

I hate to point out the obvious but if a dog is on a tether it requires MORE direct care to remain healthy and fit. You MUST go to each dog daily to water and feed it. Yet you "believe" these dogs are automatically recieving a lower standar of care and have a poorer life style than a dog that's stuck in a pen with automatic food and water and ignored for days and days at a time? SO TRUE!

We can't legislate common sense. We can't make people raise their dogs with the same level of attention they do their children without invading peoples lives and privacy. IF ONLY!

What can and should be done is that the laws we have with relation to animal neglect, cruelty, and abuse should be enforced and penalties stiffened. AGREED!

Would you have laws written to precisely describe the minimum square footage of a home and yard per each dog? Would you have laws written that would prevent anyone from owning a dog that is below a certain income level?   IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THEY ALREADY EXIST!  I HARDILY AGREE ABOUT INCOME LEVEL, FOR DOG'S VET CARE, PERIOD!

Outlaw tethers in the name of "prevention" of abuse and those kinds of laws are the next logical step. IF ONLY AGAIN!  I THINK WHAT TETHERING LAWS MEAN TO DO IS LIMIT HOW LONG THE DOG IS ON THE TETHER!  HECK, I WILL TETHER A DOG IN MY FENCED YARD, IF HE IS A FENCE JUMPER!!  BETTER TO BE SAFE, THEN SORRY... 

In the end the goal of making ownership of pets, particularly dogs so burdensome, expensive, and unmanageable to make it such that very few people would ever want to undertake it. Add to that the type of enforcement which would be required to support such laws, that by merely owning a dog one would have to give up all right to liberty or property rights since in order to enforce these laws one would have to be willing to have animal control come into your home and yard at will without any allegations of abuse or neglect.   FOR ME TO HAVE FOUR DOGS IN MY HOUSE AT ONE TIME, I AM SUBJECT TO HOME CHECKS BY MY CITY'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I DO NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT!  I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE OR FEAR, SO COME ON OVER ANY TIME. 

Think about what you are supporting here, it would not help animals, it would eliminate most people from being able to afford them, or to put up with the level of government intrusion that owning them would require. CR   I SAY IF YOU CAN'T TREAT THE DOGS RIGHT, AND CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE CARE OF THEM, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE! 

If you tether a dog in an unfenced yard and it attacks or bites a child who wanders into your yard you will be in major financial pain.

Which is no different from the liability you assume with a dog that's in your house, loose in the yard, running around in a fenced yard, or being kept in your yard by an invisible fence.

There's no evidence anywhere that I'm aware of that shows a greater tendancy for a dog to be agressive that is chained/tethered vs one that is not. In fact while I haven't kept track of it statistically I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of dog bite cases involve dogs that are not tied, tethered, or chained. For whatever reason it's just easy to point at these cases where a dog is tethered and point a finger.

CR

See n Spots: 

Given half the chance these zealots would reject anyone who rented, lived in an apartment, was over 75, had work keeping them away 8-10 hours a day & require wouldbe dog owners to pass a test & need a Dog Owner's License.

Do you really think it's smart to adopt to renters?  What happens when they pick up and have to move in after years lease, and this time they cannot find a place where the dog can go with them?  One more dog for some shelter or rescue to have to find a home for.  I will be honest, I HAVE adopted to a few renters, because I believe you must look at adopters on their own merit...do they have a track record of getting dogs, then dumping them when they gotta move?  How about the solder who contacted us to take his GSP while on tour of duty.  It was a one year old GSP.  Are you telling me one year ago you never thought you'd be in the military, with a possible tour on your hands?  Why on earth would you get a dog when you have a mission like that, so unknown?  Do you really think it's a wise choice to adopt a puppy to a 75+ yr old person, when you most certainly must consider the pup will outlive the person?  I WILL consider allowing an older person to adopt an older dog, but no way on puppies.  Heck, I had a guy call me not long ago, was 80 yrs old, and a breeder sold him a high powered GSP hunting machine. The guy flat out told me he cannot handle the dog!  Smart breeder?  I think not.  I hate to sound blatentenly mean, but maybe there SHOULD be a dog owner & lisc test?  Look at all the collectors and hoarders out there, who probably can't even handle one dog, but their hearts are so big, their heads can't catch up, and they continue collecting animals until they are so overwhelmed that the animals suffer?  Hell, I can barely keep up with my own three, plus how many rescue dogs!  I know my limits and keep to them or risk stroking out at 50 yrs old!   

It's all about responsibility.